Sure, the US is different. But there’s a lot of complacent assumptions around in the markets - that underneath the anarchy these are our kind of people, pro-business etc - and I could see it being the same with a Farage-led government.

But look at how soft the bond markets have been on Trump. Sure, they reined him in on tariffs, but they seem relatively unbothered by the general anarchy - compared to how ready they have been to jump on left governments at other times and places.

I think we should remember cases like this before we implicitly mock those who answered yes to that first question (or express surprise that so many did): www.bbc.com/news/uk-engl...

And if they’ve done history but not economics, The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner.

Mortal Questions by Thomas Nagel. In my view a better bet than all the “Short Introduction to” books (including his). And easier to pick and choose as a set of standalone essays.

But I agree that anything that might be “agreed” is not worth very much

Interesting more for the signals we see from Merz, than for the noise from Trump.

As for those bandying about words like “dog-whistle”, or even comparisons with Powell - it’s absurd.

… but it’s far from straightforward: the right wing media and parties would fill the void, presenting quietness as not caring, or worse, covering things up.

And those hyperventilating about the language need to get over themselves. Sure, a case can be made for an alternative approach: stay quiet and try to get on top of the mess they inherited, hope to reap the benefits later on and avoid alienating the left in the meantime. That *might* work…

This is a perfectly defensible view. But so is the opposite view that we should decide the objectives or parameters we want on immigration, and if that exposes problems with our care model, higher ed model, even our economy, then we should tackle those, rather than reaching for the immigration valve